## Facts

- James Hunt was an independent truck driver who contracted with Moore Brothers, Inc. under an “Independent Contractor Operating Agreement” signed in 2010 and renewed in 2013.
- The agreement required “final and binding arbitration” for disputes arising out of the parties’ relationship, before an arbitrator “mutually agreed upon by both parties.”
- After the parties’ relationship deteriorated, Hunt retained attorney Jana Yocum Rine.
- Rine filed a multicount federal complaint against Moore alleging, among other things, violations of criminal statutes, RICO, federal antitrust laws, and various state-law claims.
- Moore moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- Rine opposed the motion, arguing that Moore’s alleged violation of the agreement voided the arbitration provisions and that the FAA did not apply because Hunt was a transportation worker within the FAA § 1 exclusion.
- The district court rejected these arguments, reasoning that an alleged breach of the overall contract did not invalidate the agreement to arbitrate and that Hunt, characterized as an independent contractor, was not an employee able to invoke the transportation-worker exclusion as the court understood it.
- The district court compelled arbitration and directed the parties to select an arbitrator according to the contract’s selection process.
- After the order compelling arbitration, Rine filed an additional motion asserting that the arbitrator-selection language had failed and that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under Nebraska law as an “agreement to agree.”
- The district court concluded that Rine should have raised the Nebraska-law argument earlier and that it lacked merit in any event because the FAA required enforcement and displaced any conflicting state rule.
- Moore moved for sanctions against Rine under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for multiplying proceedings through meritless filings resisting arbitration.
- The district court granted the sanctions motion, required Moore to document the fees caused by the sanctionable conduct, awarded roughly $7,400–$7,500, and dismissed Hunt’s case after compelling arbitration.
- Rine appealed the sanctions order to the Seventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning Hunt’s attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings in resisting arbitration.
2. Whether Rine’s post-compulsion motion attacking the arbitration provision as an unenforceable “agreement to agree” under Nebraska law was objectively baseless and therefore sanctionable.
3. Whether the district court properly limited the fee award to the excess costs Moore incurred responding to the sanctionable motions.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order imposing § 1927 sanctions on attorney Jana Yocum Rine.
- The court held that the district judge acted within the wide discretion afforded in managing litigation and responding to conduct that needlessly increased motion practice and expense.
- The court agreed that Rine’s renewed, post-order attack on arbitration—especially the Nebraska “agreement to agree” theory—was without legal support given the FAA’s requirements and controlling federal arbitration law.
- The court approved the district court’s measured approach in tying the sanction to the fees Moore incurred responding to the improper filings, supported by Moore’s submissions.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, a lawyer may be personally liable for excess costs and attorney’s fees when the lawyer “multiplies the proceedings” in an unreasonable and vexatious way; more than mere error is required, and objectively baseless positions that cause added litigation expense can satisfy the standard.
- Appellate review of a § 1927 sanction is for abuse of discretion, with substantial deference to the district court’s on-the-ground assessment of counsel’s conduct.
- A party generally may not defeat arbitration by claiming the other side breached the broader contract; the agreement to arbitrate is enforced according to federal arbitration law even when other contract disputes are alleged.
- The FAA preempts state-law doctrines that would invalidate or burden arbitration agreements in a manner inconsistent with the FAA’s requirement that arbitration agreements be enforced on equal terms with other contracts.
- Persisting with new, untimely, or legally unsupported arbitrability arguments after a court has compelled arbitration can constitute unreasonable multiplication of proceedings.
- Any § 1927 award should be tailored to the added fees and costs caused by the sanctionable conduct and supported by an adequate record of those expenses.

## Conclusion

Hunt v. Moore Brothers upheld sanctions against a lawyer who continued to resist an arbitration order through untimely and legally meritless motions, including a state-law “agreement to agree” challenge that the district court found incompatible with the FAA; the Seventh Circuit concluded the district court acted within its discretion and properly limited the award to the extra fees Moore incurred responding to the improper filings.


Hunt v. Moore Brothers, 861 F.3d 655 (2017)